Bret Baier Interview witn Former FBI Director James Comey on Clinton Probe, Russia investigation … Baier Exposes Comey For the Liar & Leaker He Is (VIDEO)

Bret Baier of FOX News exposes Comey for the lying weasel he truly is …

The more James Comey talks. the less credible he sounds. What becomes obvious is that there was a total double standard when it came to the Trump and Hillary Clinton investigations. It is chilling that he can’t see it. Comey doen’t think he leaked , does sneaky things or does weasily things. Guilty on all counts.

Three Big Takeaways from Bret Baier’s Thorough Grilling of James Comey:

(1.) “What do you mean?” asks an incredulous Baier when Comey says he can’t say for sure that the DNC and Clinton campaign funded the salacious dossier. Comey clarifies that he’s only heard media reports to that effect, but can’t be certain they’re true. How is that possible? First of all, the provenance of that file, and who paid for it, has been an established fact for months. Comey was in an unique position to know basically everything about the dossier, upon which he at least partially relied (his answer on this point struck me as slippery and conflicts with other information) to secure surveillance on a former Trump campaign associate. He claims he knew it was furnished by people opposed to Donald Trump, but never knew their specific identities. Really? Either that’s false or he was strangely and perhaps deliberately under-informed about key details behind a crucial oppo-research file that he exploited to achieve important investigative ends. As for his assertion that Steele’s anti-Trump work was originally paid for by Republicans, this is a Democratic talking point that has long been debunked, as Baier notes. Conservative figures did employ Fusion GPS for a time to gather research on Trump, but they did not fund Steele or his dossier. As Byron York says, “given its importance in Trump-Russia probe and his own relationship with the president, James Comey’s ignorance of some basic facts about the dossier is stunning.”

(2.) On the Clinton email scandal probe, Comey defends his actions over the course of that process — persuasively at times, and less so at others. His explanation of his judgments about Clinton’s criminal intent wasn’t terribly compelling to me. Baier plays a montage of Comey confirming multiple lies Clinton told about her improper and national security-compromising email scheme, essentially asking how intentional deceit about arguably illegal conduct doesn’t signal intent (Trey Gowdy made the same point). Comey responds that Clinton lying to the media and the American people isn’t the same as lying to the FBI. That’s true as a legal matter, but lying to the FBI wasn’t the core potential crime under scrutiny; gross negligence in handling classified materials was. Was Clinton merely sloppy (or ‘really sloppy,’ as Comey puts it in the interview), or did she have an ulterior motive for her reckless set-up, of which she was well aware and calculating? Her repeated public lies about her actions suggest the latter. That ought to be the relevant standard on divining intent within that context, in my view. Plus, “sloppiness” does not explain the lengths to which she went to bypass the rules and accountability, nor does it cover the knowing falsehoods and evidence destruction she engaged in when caught.

(3) In my earlier Comey-related post, I mentioned the theory that the decision to brief President-elect Trump only about the most prurient aspect of the dossier (regarding Russian prostitutes) was a set-up to offer a “news hook” to media outlets eager to run with the story. Baier put this theory to Comey, who said he didn’t leak about that briefing to anyone, adding that former Obama intelligence official James Clapper didn’t either, to his knowledge. The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway pieced together and floated this idea a week ago:

Bret Baier on key takeaways from his James Comey interview